From Walter Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University.
WW is on target. You have to be very uninformed or naive to think that socialism works better than capitalism.
---------------------------------------
Several recent polls, plus the popularity of Sen. Bernie Sanders, demonstrate that young people prefer socialism to free market capitalism. That, I believe, is a result of their ignorance and indoctrination during their school years, from kindergarten through college. For the most part, neither they nor many of their teachers and professors know what free market capitalism is.
Free market capitalism, wherein there is peaceful voluntary exchange, is morally superior to any other economic system. Why? Let’s start with my initial premise. All of us own ourselves. I am my private property, and you are yours. Murder, rape, theft and the initiation of violence are immoral because they violate self-ownership. Similarly, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another person, for any reason, is immoral because it violates self-ownership.
Tragically, two-thirds to three-quarters of the federal budget can be described as Congress taking the rightful earnings of one American to give to another American — using one American to serve another. Such acts include farm subsidies, business bailouts, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and many other programs.
Free market capitalism is disfavored by many Americans — and threatened — not because of its failure but, ironically, because of its success. Free market capitalism in America has been so successful in eliminating the traditional problems of mankind — such as disease, pestilence, hunger and gross poverty — that all other human problems appear both unbearable and inexcusable. The desire by many Americans to eliminate these so-called unbearable and inexcusable problems has led to the call for socialism. That call includes equality of income, sex and race balance, affordable housing and medical care, orderly markets, and many other socialistic ideas.
Let’s compare capitalism with socialism by answering the following questions: In which areas of our lives do we find the greatest satisfaction, and in which do we find the greatest dissatisfaction? It turns out that we seldom find people upset with and in conflict with computer and clothing stores, supermarkets, and hardware stores. We do see people highly dissatisfied with and often in conflict with boards of education, motor vehicles departments, police and city sanitation services.
What are the differences? For one, the motivation for the provision of services of computer and clothing stores, supermarkets, and hardware stores is profit. Also, if you’re dissatisfied with their services, you can instantaneously fire them by taking your business elsewhere. It’s a different matter with public education, motor vehicles departments, police and city sanitation services. They are not motivated by profit at all. Plus, if you’re dissatisfied with their service, it is costly and in many cases even impossible to fire them.
A much larger and totally ignored question has to do with the brutality of socialism. In the 20th century, the one-party socialist states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Germany under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the People’s Republic of China were responsible for the murder of 118 million citizens, mostly their own. The tallies were: USSR 62 million, Nazi Germany 21 million and PRC 35 million (http://tinyurl.com/zafgs5p). No such record of brutality can be found in countries that tend toward free market capitalism.
Here’s an experiment for you. List countries according to whether they are closer to the free market capitalist or to the socialist/communist end of the economic spectrum. Then rank the countries according to per capita gross domestic product. Finally, rank the countries according to Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World” report. You will find that people who live in countries closer to the free market capitalist end of the economic spectrum not only have far greater wealth than people who live in countries toward the socialistic/communist end but also enjoy far greater human rights protections.
As Dr. Thomas Sowell says, “socialism sounds great. It has always sounded great. And it will probably always continue to sound great. It is only when you go beyond rhetoric, and start looking at hard facts, that socialism turns out to be a big disappointment, if not a disaster.”
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Friday, May 25, 2018
From the Crime Prevention Research Center
Referring to mass murders in schools:
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Thursday, May 17, 2018
Quotations
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
My computer beat me at chess... so I beat it at kickboxing.
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction.
You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
The problem with political jokes is they get elected.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny . . ."
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
----- Herm Albright
My computer beat me at chess... so I beat it at kickboxing.
----- Demetri Martin
Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.
----- H.L.Mencken
America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week.
America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week.
----- Evan Esar
An expert is a person who avoids small error as he sweeps on to the grand fallacy.
----- Niels Bohr
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
----- John Kenneth Galbraith
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying.
----- Woody Allen
The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction.
----- Bertrand Russell
You are young, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions. Refrain therefore awhile from setting yourself up as a judge of the highest matters.
----- Plato
One should never elect as President someone who wants to be president.
----- Robert Ferguson
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
----- H.L. Mencken
The problem with political jokes is they get elected.
----- Henry Cate VII
Reality is unreal.
----- Robert Ferguson
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny . . ."
----- Issac Asimov
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
----- Richard Feynman
Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
----- Bertrand Russell
Yes, Virginia: The media and anti-gun groups lie
The following survey is from the National Association of Chiefs of Police.
Note the contrast between the truth (below) and what you hear from the media and anti-gun groups.
29th Annual National Survey Results
FIREARMS Yes % No % N/A %
Should any vetted citizen be able to purchase a firearm
for sport or self-defense? 87.84 8.04 4.12
Does your department support nationwide recognition
of state issued concealed weapon permits? 86.62 8.61 4.77
Can qualified, law-abiding armed citizens help
law enforcement reduce violent criminal activity? 75.77 18.52 5.71
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Climate Change Reconsidered II
Here is a link to the paper "Climate Change Reconsidered".
The paper's authors are:
Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology.
Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a research physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author or co-author of more than 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served as an adjunct professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State University. He earned a Ph.D. in soil science from the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Robert M. Carter is a stratigrapher and marine geologist with degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and University of Cambridge (England). He is the author of Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change (2013). Carter’s professional service includes terms as head of the Geology Department, James Cook University, chairman of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council, chairman of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, and director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program. He is currently an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs (Melbourne).
Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the U.S. He established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. He is coauthor, with Dennis T. Avery, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years (2007, second ed. 2008) and many other books. Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94), and is founder and chairman of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.
“I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.” Kumar Raina, Former Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India
“Climate Change Reconsidered II fulfills an important role in countering the IPCC part by part, highlighting crucial things they ignore such as the Little Ice Age and the recovery (warming) which began in 1800–1850. In contrast to the IPCC, which often ignores evidence of past changes, the authors of the NIPCC report recognize that climatology requires studying past changes to infer future changes.” Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Founding Director & Professor of Physics Emeritus International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
“The work of the NIPCC to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal.” Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa, Canada
“The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc. There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies.” S. Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor United Nations World Meteorological Organization
“Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC's CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. It sorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed.” Chris de Freitas, School of Environment The University of Auckland, New Zealand
“Rather than coming from a pre-determined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information. If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy. Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important.” Bruce Borders, Professor of Forest Biometrics Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia
“I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several ‘schools of thought,’ in science as well as other disciplines, many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC.” Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography, Hull University Editor, Energy & Environment.
• Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.
• Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.
• No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.
• Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.
• A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
----------------------------------
We are not alone in questioning the accuracy or reliability of IPCC reports. In 2010, the InterAcademy Council, an international organization representing the world’s leading national academies of science, produced an audit of IPCC procedures. In its report, Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC, the IAC decried the lack of independent review, reliance on unpublished and non-peer-reviewed sources, refusal by some of the lead authors to share their data with critics, and political interference in the selection of authors and contributors.
The paper's authors are:
Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Since 1998, he has been the editor and chief contributor to the online magazine CO2 Science. He is the author of several books, including The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011) and CO2 , Global Warming and Coral Reefs (2009). He earned a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University (ASU), where he lectured in meteorology and was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology.
Dr. Sherwood B. Idso is president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Previously he was a research physicist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author or co-author of more than 500 scientific publications including the books Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? (1982) and Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition (1989). He served as an adjunct professor in the Departments of Geology, Geography, and Botany and Microbiology at Arizona State University. He earned a Ph.D. in soil science from the University of Minnesota.
Dr. Robert M. Carter is a stratigrapher and marine geologist with degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and University of Cambridge (England). He is the author of Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change (2013). Carter’s professional service includes terms as head of the Geology Department, James Cook University, chairman of the Earth Sciences Panel of the Australian Research Council, chairman of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, and director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program. He is currently an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs (Melbourne).
Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the U.S. He established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. He is coauthor, with Dennis T. Avery, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years (2007, second ed. 2008) and many other books. Dr. Singer served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971-94), and is founder and chairman of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project. He earned a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University.
Here are some reviews.
“I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.” Kumar Raina, Former Deputy Director General Geological Survey of India
“Climate Change Reconsidered II fulfills an important role in countering the IPCC part by part, highlighting crucial things they ignore such as the Little Ice Age and the recovery (warming) which began in 1800–1850. In contrast to the IPCC, which often ignores evidence of past changes, the authors of the NIPCC report recognize that climatology requires studying past changes to infer future changes.” Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Founding Director & Professor of Physics Emeritus International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks
“The work of the NIPCC to present the evidence for natural climate warming and climate change is an essential counter-balance to the biased reporting of the IPCC. They have brought to focus a range of peer-reviewed publications showing that natural forces have in the past and continue today to dominate the climate signal.” Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa, Canada
“The CCR-II report correctly explains that most of the reports on global warming and its impacts on sea-level rise, ice melts, glacial retreats, impact on crop production, extreme weather events, rainfall changes, etc. have not properly considered factors such as physical impacts of human activities, natural variability in climate, lopsided models used in the prediction of production estimates, etc. There is a need to look into these phenomena at local and regional scales before sensationalization of global warming-related studies.” S. Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor United Nations World Meteorological Organization
“Library shelves are cluttered with books on global warming. The problem is identifying which ones are worth reading. The NIPCC's CCR-II report is one of these. Its coverage of the topic is comprehensive without being superficial. It sorts through conflicting claims made by scientists and highlights mounting evidence that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide increase is lower than climate models have until now assumed.” Chris de Freitas, School of Environment The University of Auckland, New Zealand
“Rather than coming from a pre-determined politicized position that is typical of the IPCC, the NIPCC constrains itself to the scientific process so as to provide objective information. If we (scientists) are honest, we understand that the study of atmospheric processes/dynamics is in its infancy. Consequently, the work of the NIPCC and its most recent report is very important.” Bruce Borders, Professor of Forest Biometrics Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia
“I support [the work of the NIPCC] because I am convinced that the whole field of climate and climate change urgently needs an open debate between several ‘schools of thought,’ in science as well as other disciplines, many of which jumped on the IPCC bandwagon far too readily. Climate, and even more so impacts and responses, are far too complex and important to be left to an official body like the IPCC.” Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography, Hull University Editor, Energy & Environment.
A few Excerpts from the Preface.
------------------------------------------------
Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation. • Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.
• Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.
• No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.
• Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.
• A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
-------------------------------------
A careful reading of the chapters below reveals thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles do not support and often contradict IPCC’s alarmist narrative. ----------------------------------
Oftentimes, IPCC’s pessimistic forecasts fly in the face of scientific observations. The global ecosystem is not suffering from the rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels IPCC has called “unprecedented,” despite all the models and hypotheses IPCC’s authors marshal to make that case. Real-world data show conclusively that most plants flourish when exposed to higher temperatures and higher levels of CO2 and that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great post-Industrial Revolution greening that is causing deserts to retreat and forests to expand, enlarging habitat for wildlife. Essentially the same story can be told of global warming’s impact on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this perspective missing from IPCC’s reports? NIPCC has been publishing volumes containing this research for five years—long enough, one would think, for the authors of IPCC’s reports to have taken notice, if only to disagree. But the draft of the Working Group II contribution to IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggests otherwise. Either IPCC’s authors purposely ignore this research because it runs counter to their thesis that any human impact on climate must be bad and therefore stopped at any cost, or they are inept and have failed to conduct a proper and full scientific investigation of the pertinent literature. Either way, IPCC is misleading the scientific community, policymakers, and the general public. Because the stakes are high, this is a grave disservice.
We are not alone in questioning the accuracy or reliability of IPCC reports. In 2010, the InterAcademy Council, an international organization representing the world’s leading national academies of science, produced an audit of IPCC procedures. In its report, Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes & Procedures of the IPCC, the IAC decried the lack of independent review, reliance on unpublished and non-peer-reviewed sources, refusal by some of the lead authors to share their data with critics, and political interference in the selection of authors and contributors.
Walter Williams: Kanye and Democrats
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
In the aftermath of the Kanye West dust-up, my heart goes out to the white people who control the Democratic Party. My pity stems from the hip-hop megastar’s November announcement to his packed concert audience that he did not vote in the presidential election but if he had, he would have voted for Donald Trump. Then, on April 21, West took to his Twitter account, which has 28 million followers, to announce, “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.” Owens is Turning Point USA’s director of urban engagement and has said that former President Barack Obama caused “damage” to race relations in the United States during his two terms in office.
West’s support for Trump, along with his criticism of the “plantation” mentality of the Democratic Party, has been met with vicious backlash from the left. In one song, West raps, “See, that’s the problem with this damn nation. All blacks gotta be Democrats. Man, we ain’t made it off the plantation.” Rep. Maxine Waters said West “talks out of turn” and advised, “He should think twice about politics — and maybe not have so much to say.” The bottom-line sin that West has committed is questioning the hegemony of the Democratic Party among black Americans. The backlash has been so bad that West had to hire personal security to protect him against threats made against his life. Fortunately, the police are investigating those threats.
Kanye West is not saying anything different from what Dr. Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Jason Riley, I and other black libertarians/conservatives have been saying for decades. In fact, West has tweeted quotations from Sowell, such as “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it” and “The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best.” Tweeting those Sowell quotations represents the highest order of blasphemy in the eyes of leftists.
The big difference between black libertarians/conservatives and West is that he has 28 million Twitter followers and a huge audience of listeners whereas few blacks have even heard of libertarian/conservative blacks outside of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (I might add in passing that Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the nation’s most distinguished and accomplished scholars alive today.)
The Kanye problem for the Democratic Party is that if the party doesn’t keep blacks in line and it loses even 20 to 25 percent of the black vote, it can kiss any hope of winning any presidential and many congressional elections goodbye. Democrats may have already seen that threat. That’s why they support illegal immigration and voting rights for noncitizens. Immigrants from south of the border who are here illegally may be seen as either a replacement for or a guarantee against the disaster of losing the black vote.
Keeping blacks blind to the folly of unquestioned support for the Democratic Party by keeping blacks fearful, angry and resentful and painting the Republican Party as racist is vital. Democrats never want blacks to seriously ask questions about what the party has done for them. Here are some facts. The nation’s most troublesome and dangerous cities — Indianapolis, Stockton, Oakland, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Kansas City, Baltimore, Memphis, St. Louis and Detroit — have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats, for nearly a half-century. These and other Democratic-run cities are where blacks suffer the highest murder rates and their youngsters attend the poorest-performing and most unsafe schools.
Democrats could never afford for a large number of black people to observe, “We’ve been putting you in charge of our cities for decades. We even put a black Democrat in the White House. And what has it meant for us? Plus, the president you told us to hate has our unemployment rate near a record low.” It turns out that it’s black votes that count more to black and white politicians than black well-being, black academic excellence and black lives. As for black politicians and civil rights leaders, if they’re going to sell their people down the river to keep Democrats in power, they ought to demand a higher price.
In the aftermath of the Kanye West dust-up, my heart goes out to the white people who control the Democratic Party. My pity stems from the hip-hop megastar’s November announcement to his packed concert audience that he did not vote in the presidential election but if he had, he would have voted for Donald Trump. Then, on April 21, West took to his Twitter account, which has 28 million followers, to announce, “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.” Owens is Turning Point USA’s director of urban engagement and has said that former President Barack Obama caused “damage” to race relations in the United States during his two terms in office.
West’s support for Trump, along with his criticism of the “plantation” mentality of the Democratic Party, has been met with vicious backlash from the left. In one song, West raps, “See, that’s the problem with this damn nation. All blacks gotta be Democrats. Man, we ain’t made it off the plantation.” Rep. Maxine Waters said West “talks out of turn” and advised, “He should think twice about politics — and maybe not have so much to say.” The bottom-line sin that West has committed is questioning the hegemony of the Democratic Party among black Americans. The backlash has been so bad that West had to hire personal security to protect him against threats made against his life. Fortunately, the police are investigating those threats.
Kanye West is not saying anything different from what Dr. Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Jason Riley, I and other black libertarians/conservatives have been saying for decades. In fact, West has tweeted quotations from Sowell, such as “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it” and “The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best.” Tweeting those Sowell quotations represents the highest order of blasphemy in the eyes of leftists.
The big difference between black libertarians/conservatives and West is that he has 28 million Twitter followers and a huge audience of listeners whereas few blacks have even heard of libertarian/conservative blacks outside of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. (I might add in passing that Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the nation’s most distinguished and accomplished scholars alive today.)
The Kanye problem for the Democratic Party is that if the party doesn’t keep blacks in line and it loses even 20 to 25 percent of the black vote, it can kiss any hope of winning any presidential and many congressional elections goodbye. Democrats may have already seen that threat. That’s why they support illegal immigration and voting rights for noncitizens. Immigrants from south of the border who are here illegally may be seen as either a replacement for or a guarantee against the disaster of losing the black vote.
Keeping blacks blind to the folly of unquestioned support for the Democratic Party by keeping blacks fearful, angry and resentful and painting the Republican Party as racist is vital. Democrats never want blacks to seriously ask questions about what the party has done for them. Here are some facts. The nation’s most troublesome and dangerous cities — Indianapolis, Stockton, Oakland, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Kansas City, Baltimore, Memphis, St. Louis and Detroit — have been run by Democrats, often black Democrats, for nearly a half-century. These and other Democratic-run cities are where blacks suffer the highest murder rates and their youngsters attend the poorest-performing and most unsafe schools.
Democrats could never afford for a large number of black people to observe, “We’ve been putting you in charge of our cities for decades. We even put a black Democrat in the White House. And what has it meant for us? Plus, the president you told us to hate has our unemployment rate near a record low.” It turns out that it’s black votes that count more to black and white politicians than black well-being, black academic excellence and black lives. As for black politicians and civil rights leaders, if they’re going to sell their people down the river to keep Democrats in power, they ought to demand a higher price.
Thomas Sowell - wisdom incarnate
"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it"
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Trump’s NRA Speech: A Response to the Fact-Checkers
From the Crime Prevention Research Center.
----------------------------------------------
The president has been more accurate than the media have been.
The FBI excludes attacks in private residences and ones that occur as part of some other crime, such as a gang fight or robbery. The Huffington Post and PolitiFact might find this arbitrary, but the point is to identify attacks at public areas such as schools, churches, and malls where the intention is to kill as many people as possible — the very cases that get the media’s attention.
From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” was “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location.” The offender is not included in the victim count. Probably in a politically motivated effort to inflate the number of shootings, this definition was changed during the Obama administration to “three or more killed.” But there was nothing wrong with the original definition, and most academics continue to use it.
Left-leaning fact-checkers may not want to use the FBI’s traditional definition of mass public shootings, but that is what Trump was referring to.
These media outlets questioned the classification of Fort Hood and other military sites as gun-free zones. But only military police are armed on base.
Left-leaning outlets argue that if police can carry guns in the area, then it’s not really a gun-free zone. But stationing a police officer or security guard in a public area often only gives a false sense of security. Knowing that the uniformed officer is the only person with a gun makes things quite simple for attackers: They need only kill him first. The media fact-checkers seem unwilling to accept that concealed-handgun-permit holders take away that strategic advantage from the killers, making it more difficult for these attacks to occur.
“We believe in allowing highly trained teachers to carry concealed weapons.”
The Huffington Post cites a 2005 National Research Council report that came to no conclusion on the effectiveness of concealed handguns. But the report didn’t reach a conclusion on any of the more than 100 different types of gun-control policies that it studied! It only called for the government to give them more research funding.
Only on the subject of concealed carry was there an extremely rare dissent. Preeminent criminologist James Q. Wilson objected, pointing out that the council’s own estimates show that allowing concealed carry reduces murder rates. Of course, the Huffington Post doesn’t mention any of this.
The Huffington Post also claimed that “many” teachers were “worried [that armed teachers] would do more harm than good and lead to a lot of students being injured by accident at school.” These feelings are understandable, but fortunately we also have facts to go on. In 19 states, at least some schools have armed teachers and staff. States have had these school carry rules in place for as long as 21 years, and not one school where teachers are armed has seen a mass public shooting. Not a single student has been harmed.
“Your Second Amendment rights are under siege.”
According to CNN, it is a myth that Democrats want to take away peoples' guns. Recent polls show otherwise. A YouGov survey from February found that 73 percent of Democrats “strongly” favor banning all semi-automatic guns, the most common type of gun in America. People would be left with less-efficient weapons, such as revolvers and rifles that require the user to manually cycle the action after every shot. By contrast, only 25 percent of Republicans feel the same way.
A March 1 poll by Reuters found that 66 percent of Democrats supported such a ban.
There is a huge slate of proposed gun laws just waiting to be enacted if Democrats take control. We’d be looking at a minimum age of 21 for gun purchases, a ban on large numbers of semi-automatic guns, taxes on concealed-handgun permits, and fees that would make guns significantly more expensive. And this could be just the first round of regulations.
CNN claims that Trump was misleading when he said that Hillary Clinton posed a threat to people’s right to self-defense. But Clinton campaigned on the claim that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” Overturning a couple of Supreme Court decisions would have allowed the government to completely ban guns.
Jake Tapper and others in the mainstream media might actually have convinced themselves that President Trump is “continually” lying. But really, he has been a lot more accurate than they have been.
----------------------------------------------
The president has been more accurate than the media have been.
On Sunday, Jake Tapper told Kellyanne Conway, “I would like [Trump] to stop lying.” He accused Trump of “continually” lying. But CNN and other news outlets really need to stop lying about President Trump supposedly lying. They couldn’t stop accusing the president of lying in his address last week to the NRA annual meeting.
But it is amazing how far these news organizations are willing to go to reach the conclusions they want. They rely on openly left-wing or at least left-leaning organizations such as Mother Jones, Vox, and PolitiFact.
Here are some of the statements from Trump’s speech to the NRA and the responses that he received.
“Ninety-eight percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned.”
Trump was using research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, an organization that I head. The Huffington Post declares that there is no “official” definition of “mass shootings,” but in fact there is a precise FBI definition for “mass public shootings.”
But it is amazing how far these news organizations are willing to go to reach the conclusions they want. They rely on openly left-wing or at least left-leaning organizations such as Mother Jones, Vox, and PolitiFact.
Here are some of the statements from Trump’s speech to the NRA and the responses that he received.
“Ninety-eight percent of mass public shootings have occurred in places where guns are banned.”
Trump was using research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, an organization that I head. The Huffington Post declares that there is no “official” definition of “mass shootings,” but in fact there is a precise FBI definition for “mass public shootings.”
The FBI excludes attacks in private residences and ones that occur as part of some other crime, such as a gang fight or robbery. The Huffington Post and PolitiFact might find this arbitrary, but the point is to identify attacks at public areas such as schools, churches, and malls where the intention is to kill as many people as possible — the very cases that get the media’s attention.
From 1980 to 2013, the original FBI definition of “mass killings” was “four or more victims slain, in one event, in one location.” The offender is not included in the victim count. Probably in a politically motivated effort to inflate the number of shootings, this definition was changed during the Obama administration to “three or more killed.” But there was nothing wrong with the original definition, and most academics continue to use it.
Left-leaning fact-checkers may not want to use the FBI’s traditional definition of mass public shootings, but that is what Trump was referring to.
These media outlets questioned the classification of Fort Hood and other military sites as gun-free zones. But only military police are armed on base.
Left-leaning outlets argue that if police can carry guns in the area, then it’s not really a gun-free zone. But stationing a police officer or security guard in a public area often only gives a false sense of security. Knowing that the uniformed officer is the only person with a gun makes things quite simple for attackers: They need only kill him first. The media fact-checkers seem unwilling to accept that concealed-handgun-permit holders take away that strategic advantage from the killers, making it more difficult for these attacks to occur.
“We believe in allowing highly trained teachers to carry concealed weapons.”
The Huffington Post cites a 2005 National Research Council report that came to no conclusion on the effectiveness of concealed handguns. But the report didn’t reach a conclusion on any of the more than 100 different types of gun-control policies that it studied! It only called for the government to give them more research funding.
Only on the subject of concealed carry was there an extremely rare dissent. Preeminent criminologist James Q. Wilson objected, pointing out that the council’s own estimates show that allowing concealed carry reduces murder rates. Of course, the Huffington Post doesn’t mention any of this.
The Huffington Post also claimed that “many” teachers were “worried [that armed teachers] would do more harm than good and lead to a lot of students being injured by accident at school.” These feelings are understandable, but fortunately we also have facts to go on. In 19 states, at least some schools have armed teachers and staff. States have had these school carry rules in place for as long as 21 years, and not one school where teachers are armed has seen a mass public shooting. Not a single student has been harmed.
“Your Second Amendment rights are under siege.”
According to CNN, it is a myth that Democrats want to take away peoples' guns. Recent polls show otherwise. A YouGov survey from February found that 73 percent of Democrats “strongly” favor banning all semi-automatic guns, the most common type of gun in America. People would be left with less-efficient weapons, such as revolvers and rifles that require the user to manually cycle the action after every shot. By contrast, only 25 percent of Republicans feel the same way.
A March 1 poll by Reuters found that 66 percent of Democrats supported such a ban.
There is a huge slate of proposed gun laws just waiting to be enacted if Democrats take control. We’d be looking at a minimum age of 21 for gun purchases, a ban on large numbers of semi-automatic guns, taxes on concealed-handgun permits, and fees that would make guns significantly more expensive. And this could be just the first round of regulations.
CNN claims that Trump was misleading when he said that Hillary Clinton posed a threat to people’s right to self-defense. But Clinton campaigned on the claim that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment.” Overturning a couple of Supreme Court decisions would have allowed the government to completely ban guns.
Jake Tapper and others in the mainstream media might actually have convinced themselves that President Trump is “continually” lying. But really, he has been a lot more accurate than they have been.
Monday, May 07, 2018
Why you should own an AR-15 and lots of ammunition
Here is BJ Campbell at Medium.com with the mathematics of why you should own an AR-15 and lots of ammunition.
Given the current level of intolerance, violence, and advocacy of policies that will lead to economic disaster, etc., and their worsening trend, BJC's probabilities seem reasonable.
-------------------------------------------
Asgun policy discussions unfold in the wake of mass shooter incidents, they routinely end in three buckets. There’s the “tyranny can never happen here” bucket, which the left has mostly abdicated in the wake of Trump winning after they called (and still call) him a tyrant. There’s the “you can’t fight the army with small arms” bucket, which is increasingly unsound given our ongoing decade-and-a-half war with Afghani tribal goat herders. And there’s the “what the hell do you need an AR-15 for anyway?” bucket, which, by its very language, eschews a fundamental lack of understanding of what those people are thinking. I am not a prepper. But I know a few. Some of the ones I do know are smart. They may not be doing as deep an analysis as I present here, on a mathematical level, but the smart ones are definitely doing it at a subconscious level. If you want to understand the perspectives of others, as everyone in my opinion should strive to do, then you would do well to read to the end of this article. To get where we’re going, we will need to discuss the general framework of disaster mathematics.
Stormwater Hydrology and the Mathematics of Unlikely Events
I’m not a writer by trade. I’m a stormwater hydrologist, and in my opinion, a pretty good one. Hydrology is the science of tracking water as it moves through the water cycle, from ocean evaporation through cloud formation, precipitation, groundwater infiltration, runoff, evapotranspiration, riverine hydraulics, and the time series behavior of reservoirs. It is a deep and fascinating field, but one of its most relevant applications to our lives is delineating floodplain boundaries.
To determine a floodplain boundary, we first identify a “storm event” that concerns us. We use historical rainfall data and some statistical magic to calculate the worst storm event a place is likely to experience in a 100-year time span, probabilistically speaking, and we call that the “100-year storm.” There’s a push in the field to quit calling it that, because it confuses the muggles, so now we often say something like “the storm which has a 1% chance of happening in any given year.” Then we take that rainfall data, judiciously apply more math, and turn it into a flow rate in a river. Then we do hydraulics (more math) to determine how deep the river will have to be to carry that much water, and we draw a line on a map.
You should have seen this line, if you’ve ever bought a house near a floodplain. If you bought a house near a floodplain and were not shown this line, contact me professionally to ensure you didn’t make a terrible mistake.
We don’t buy houses in the floodplain if we can help it, because we are risk averse, even though the chance of it flooding in any given year is only 1%. Why? We will live in the house longer than one year. Over the 30-year life of a mortgage, the chance of the house flooding at least once vastly exceeds 1%, because every year is another roll of the dice. It’s not cumulative, though. The mathematics for back-calculating the odds is called a Bernoulli Process. Here’s what it looks like:
Let’s quickly walk through this. The chance of flooding, P(F), is 1%, or 0.01. The chance of not flooding, which we notate P(F’), is 100%-1%, or 99%, or 0.99. To see the chance you don’t flood two years in a row, you would have to “not-flood” the first year, and then “not-flood” the second year, so you multiply the two probabilities together, and get 0.9801. The chance of “not-flooding” 30 years in a row is calculated by multiplying the chance of not flooding with itself, over and over, 30 times, which is a power relationship. P(F’)³⁰. That’s 0.7397 chance of 30 consecutive years of no flood, which means a 26% chance of at least one flood.
And then your mortgage broker doesn’t give you your thirty-year fixed rate loan, because a 26% chance of a disaster is a big chance, when we’re talking about disasters. Now let’s talk about a bigger, nastier disaster than a flood.
Prepper Math
There’s a common misconception in the media about the eventuality for which the preppers are exactly prepping. That’s because they’re a diverse group, and prep for many different things. No, they aren’t planning for a revolution to overthrow the government. (Most of them, anyway.) Mostly they’re planning to keep themselves and their families safe while someone else tries to overthrow the government. That, or zombies. (More on zombies below.)
While we don’t have any good sources of data on how often zombies take over the world, we definitely have good sources of data on when the group of people on the piece of dirt we currently call the USA attempt to overthrow the ruling government. It’s happened twice since colonization. The first one, the American Revolution, succeeded. The second one, the Civil War, failed. But they are both qualifying events. Now we can do math.
(post publication author’s note: This is the “five minute” version of how to do the math. There are certainly deeply more complicated analyses someone could use to establish the P(R) number, and someone with the resources to do so should absolutely do that. But I don’t find this result unreasonable. 5/5/2018)
Stepping through this, the average year for colony establishment is 1678, which is 340 years ago. Two qualifying events in 340 years is a 0.5882% annual chance of nationwide violent revolution against the ruling government. Do the same math as we did above with the floodplains, in precisely the same way, and we see a 37% chance that any American of average life expectancy will experience at least one nationwide violent revolution.
This is a bigger chance than your floodplain-bound home flooding during your mortgage.
Given the current level of intolerance, violence, and advocacy of policies that will lead to economic disaster, etc., and their worsening trend, BJC's probabilities seem reasonable.
-------------------------------------------
Asgun policy discussions unfold in the wake of mass shooter incidents, they routinely end in three buckets. There’s the “tyranny can never happen here” bucket, which the left has mostly abdicated in the wake of Trump winning after they called (and still call) him a tyrant. There’s the “you can’t fight the army with small arms” bucket, which is increasingly unsound given our ongoing decade-and-a-half war with Afghani tribal goat herders. And there’s the “what the hell do you need an AR-15 for anyway?” bucket, which, by its very language, eschews a fundamental lack of understanding of what those people are thinking. I am not a prepper. But I know a few. Some of the ones I do know are smart. They may not be doing as deep an analysis as I present here, on a mathematical level, but the smart ones are definitely doing it at a subconscious level. If you want to understand the perspectives of others, as everyone in my opinion should strive to do, then you would do well to read to the end of this article. To get where we’re going, we will need to discuss the general framework of disaster mathematics.
Stormwater Hydrology and the Mathematics of Unlikely Events
I’m not a writer by trade. I’m a stormwater hydrologist, and in my opinion, a pretty good one. Hydrology is the science of tracking water as it moves through the water cycle, from ocean evaporation through cloud formation, precipitation, groundwater infiltration, runoff, evapotranspiration, riverine hydraulics, and the time series behavior of reservoirs. It is a deep and fascinating field, but one of its most relevant applications to our lives is delineating floodplain boundaries.
To determine a floodplain boundary, we first identify a “storm event” that concerns us. We use historical rainfall data and some statistical magic to calculate the worst storm event a place is likely to experience in a 100-year time span, probabilistically speaking, and we call that the “100-year storm.” There’s a push in the field to quit calling it that, because it confuses the muggles, so now we often say something like “the storm which has a 1% chance of happening in any given year.” Then we take that rainfall data, judiciously apply more math, and turn it into a flow rate in a river. Then we do hydraulics (more math) to determine how deep the river will have to be to carry that much water, and we draw a line on a map.
You should have seen this line, if you’ve ever bought a house near a floodplain. If you bought a house near a floodplain and were not shown this line, contact me professionally to ensure you didn’t make a terrible mistake.
We don’t buy houses in the floodplain if we can help it, because we are risk averse, even though the chance of it flooding in any given year is only 1%. Why? We will live in the house longer than one year. Over the 30-year life of a mortgage, the chance of the house flooding at least once vastly exceeds 1%, because every year is another roll of the dice. It’s not cumulative, though. The mathematics for back-calculating the odds is called a Bernoulli Process. Here’s what it looks like:
P(100 year flood in 1 year)=P(F)=1%=0.01
P(not 100 year flood in 1 year)=P(not F)=1-0.01=0.99
P(not 100 year flood in x years)=[P(not F)]^x
P(not 100 year flood in 30 years)=(0.99)^30=0.7397=74%
P(at least one 100 year flood in 30 years)=1-0.74=0.26=26%
Let’s quickly walk through this. The chance of flooding, P(F), is 1%, or 0.01. The chance of not flooding, which we notate P(F’), is 100%-1%, or 99%, or 0.99. To see the chance you don’t flood two years in a row, you would have to “not-flood” the first year, and then “not-flood” the second year, so you multiply the two probabilities together, and get 0.9801. The chance of “not-flooding” 30 years in a row is calculated by multiplying the chance of not flooding with itself, over and over, 30 times, which is a power relationship. P(F’)³⁰. That’s 0.7397 chance of 30 consecutive years of no flood, which means a 26% chance of at least one flood.
And then your mortgage broker doesn’t give you your thirty-year fixed rate loan, because a 26% chance of a disaster is a big chance, when we’re talking about disasters. Now let’s talk about a bigger, nastier disaster than a flood.
There’s a common misconception in the media about the eventuality for which the preppers are exactly prepping. That’s because they’re a diverse group, and prep for many different things. No, they aren’t planning for a revolution to overthrow the government. (Most of them, anyway.) Mostly they’re planning to keep themselves and their families safe while someone else tries to overthrow the government. That, or zombies. (More on zombies below.)
While we don’t have any good sources of data on how often zombies take over the world, we definitely have good sources of data on when the group of people on the piece of dirt we currently call the USA attempt to overthrow the ruling government. It’s happened twice since colonization. The first one, the American Revolution, succeeded. The second one, the Civil War, failed. But they are both qualifying events. Now we can do math.
Average colony establishment date=1678
Years in sample=2018-1678=340
Revolutionary events=2
Estimated probability of a revolutionary event in 1 year=2/340=0.005882
Average life span=78.7 years
P(R in 1 year)=0.005882
P(not R in 1 year)=1-P(R in 1 year)=0.994118
P(not R in 78.7 years)=[P(not R in 1 year)]^78.7=0.628587
P(no revolutionary event in 78.7 years)=63%
P(at least 1 revolutionary event in 78.7 years)=37%
(post publication author’s note: This is the “five minute” version of how to do the math. There are certainly deeply more complicated analyses someone could use to establish the P(R) number, and someone with the resources to do so should absolutely do that. But I don’t find this result unreasonable. 5/5/2018)
Stepping through this, the average year for colony establishment is 1678, which is 340 years ago. Two qualifying events in 340 years is a 0.5882% annual chance of nationwide violent revolution against the ruling government. Do the same math as we did above with the floodplains, in precisely the same way, and we see a 37% chance that any American of average life expectancy will experience at least one nationwide violent revolution.
This is a bigger chance than your floodplain-bound home flooding during your mortgage.
Sunday, May 06, 2018
Colleges: Anti-Diversity and Pro-Exclusion
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
In New Jersey, Brookdale Community College professor Howard Finkelstein, in a heated exchange, was captured on video telling a conservative student, “F—- your life!” At the City University of New York School of Law, students shouted down guest lecturer Josh Blackman for 10 minutes before he could continue his remarks. When Duke University President Vincent Price was trying to address alumni, students commandeered the stage, shouting demands and telling him to leave.
None of this professorial and student behavior is new at the nation’s colleges. It’s part of the leftist agenda that dominates our colleges. A new study by Brooklyn College professor Mitchell Langbert — “Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty” (http://tinyurl.com/ycfomjy6) — demonstrates that domination. (By the way, Academic Questions is a publication of the National Association of Scholars, an organization fighting the leftist propaganda in academia.) Langbert examines the political affiliation of Ph.D.-holding faculty members at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges according to U.S. News & World Report. He finds that 39 percent of the colleges in his sample are Republican-free — with zero registered Republicans on their faculties. As for Republicans within academic departments, 78 percent of those departments have no Republican members or so few as to make no difference.
Langbert breaks down the faculty Democrat-to-Republican ratio by academic department, and there are not many surprises. Engineering departments have 1.6 Democrats for every Republican. Chemistry and economics departments have about 5.5 Democrats for every Republican. The situation is especially bad in anthropology departments, where the Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratio is 133-to-1, and in communications departments, where the ratio is 108-to-zero. Langbert says, “I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies.”
Later on in the study, Langbert turns his attention to Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios at some of our most elite colleges. At Williams College, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is 132-to-1. At Amherst College, it’s 34-to-1. Wellesley’s is 136-to-1. At Swarthmore, 120-to-1. Claremont McKenna, 4-to-1. Davidson, 10-to-1. Only two colleges of the top 66 on U.S. News & World Report’s 2017 list have a modicum of equality in numbers between Democratic and Republican faculty members. They are the U.S. Military Academy, aka West Point, with a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of 1.3-to-1, and the U.S. Naval Academy, whose ratio is 2.3-to-1.
Many professors spend class time indoctrinating students with their views. For faculty members who are Democrats, those views can be described as leftist, socialist or communist. It is a cowardly act for a professor to take advantage of student immaturity by indoctrinating pupils with his opinions before the students have developed the maturity and skill to examine other opinions. It is also dereliction of duty of college administrators and boards of trustees to permit the continuance of what some professors and students are doing in the name of higher education.
Langbert’s findings suggest biases in college research and academic policy, where leftist political homogeneity is embedded in the college culture. The leftist bias at most of the nation’s colleges is in stark contrast to the political leanings of our nation. According to a number of Pew Research Center surveys, most Americans identify as conservative. These Americans are seeing their tax dollars and tuition dollars going to people who have contempt for their values and seek to indoctrinate their children with leftist ideas.
Here is a recent column of his.
WEW is on target.
The outlook for the Country is not good when children are indoctrinated against freedom, tolerance, and sensible economics.
-----------------------------------------
Just within the past week or so, some shocking professorial behavior has come to light. In the wake of Barbara Bush’s death, California State University, Fresno professor Randa Jarrar took to Twitter to call the former first lady an “amazing racist.” Jarrar added, “PSA: either you are against these pieces of s—- and their genocidal ways or you’re part of the problem. that’s actually how simple this is. I’m happy the witch is dead. can’t wait for the rest of her family to fall to their demise the way 1.5 million iraqis have. byyyeeeeeeee.”In New Jersey, Brookdale Community College professor Howard Finkelstein, in a heated exchange, was captured on video telling a conservative student, “F—- your life!” At the City University of New York School of Law, students shouted down guest lecturer Josh Blackman for 10 minutes before he could continue his remarks. When Duke University President Vincent Price was trying to address alumni, students commandeered the stage, shouting demands and telling him to leave.
None of this professorial and student behavior is new at the nation’s colleges. It’s part of the leftist agenda that dominates our colleges. A new study by Brooklyn College professor Mitchell Langbert — “Homogeneous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty” (http://tinyurl.com/ycfomjy6) — demonstrates that domination. (By the way, Academic Questions is a publication of the National Association of Scholars, an organization fighting the leftist propaganda in academia.) Langbert examines the political affiliation of Ph.D.-holding faculty members at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges according to U.S. News & World Report. He finds that 39 percent of the colleges in his sample are Republican-free — with zero registered Republicans on their faculties. As for Republicans within academic departments, 78 percent of those departments have no Republican members or so few as to make no difference.
Langbert breaks down the faculty Democrat-to-Republican ratio by academic department, and there are not many surprises. Engineering departments have 1.6 Democrats for every Republican. Chemistry and economics departments have about 5.5 Democrats for every Republican. The situation is especially bad in anthropology departments, where the Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratio is 133-to-1, and in communications departments, where the ratio is 108-to-zero. Langbert says, “I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies.”
Later on in the study, Langbert turns his attention to Democrat-to-Republican faculty ratios at some of our most elite colleges. At Williams College, the Democrat-to-Republican ratio is 132-to-1. At Amherst College, it’s 34-to-1. Wellesley’s is 136-to-1. At Swarthmore, 120-to-1. Claremont McKenna, 4-to-1. Davidson, 10-to-1. Only two colleges of the top 66 on U.S. News & World Report’s 2017 list have a modicum of equality in numbers between Democratic and Republican faculty members. They are the U.S. Military Academy, aka West Point, with a Democrat-to-Republican ratio of 1.3-to-1, and the U.S. Naval Academy, whose ratio is 2.3-to-1.
Many professors spend class time indoctrinating students with their views. For faculty members who are Democrats, those views can be described as leftist, socialist or communist. It is a cowardly act for a professor to take advantage of student immaturity by indoctrinating pupils with his opinions before the students have developed the maturity and skill to examine other opinions. It is also dereliction of duty of college administrators and boards of trustees to permit the continuance of what some professors and students are doing in the name of higher education.
Langbert’s findings suggest biases in college research and academic policy, where leftist political homogeneity is embedded in the college culture. The leftist bias at most of the nation’s colleges is in stark contrast to the political leanings of our nation. According to a number of Pew Research Center surveys, most Americans identify as conservative. These Americans are seeing their tax dollars and tuition dollars going to people who have contempt for their values and seek to indoctrinate their children with leftist ideas.
Yes, Virginia, the teachers union really is all about the children
Here is a link to undercover video interviews with teachers union officials. It speaks for itself.
Thursday, May 03, 2018
Adverse Effects of Statin Therapy: Perception vs the Evidence
From Practice Update.
------------------------------------
Aims
To objectively appraise evidence for possible adverse effects of long-term statin therapy on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, and risk for haemorrhagic stroke or cataract.
Methods and results
A literature search covering 2000–2017 was performed. The Panel critically appraised the data and agreed by consensus on the categorization of reported adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and genetic studies show that statin therapy is associated with a modest increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (about one per thousand patient-years), generally defined by laboratory findings (glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5); this risk is significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes. Statin treatment does not adversely affect cognitive function, even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and is not associated with clinically significant deterioration of renal function, or development of cataract. Transient increases in liver enzymes occur in 0.5–2% of patients taking statins but are not clinically relevant; idiosyncratic liver injury due to statins is very rare and causality difficult to prove. The evidence base does not support an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in individuals without cerebrovascular disease; a small increase in risk was suggested by the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction of Cholesterol Levels study in subjects with prior stroke but has not been confirmed in the substantive evidence base of RCTs, cohort studies and case–control studies.
Conclusion
Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; statin-associated muscle symptoms were discussed in a previous Consensus Statement. Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects.
------------------------------------
Aims
To objectively appraise evidence for possible adverse effects of long-term statin therapy on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, and risk for haemorrhagic stroke or cataract.
Methods and results
A literature search covering 2000–2017 was performed. The Panel critically appraised the data and agreed by consensus on the categorization of reported adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and genetic studies show that statin therapy is associated with a modest increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (about one per thousand patient-years), generally defined by laboratory findings (glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5); this risk is significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes. Statin treatment does not adversely affect cognitive function, even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and is not associated with clinically significant deterioration of renal function, or development of cataract. Transient increases in liver enzymes occur in 0.5–2% of patients taking statins but are not clinically relevant; idiosyncratic liver injury due to statins is very rare and causality difficult to prove. The evidence base does not support an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in individuals without cerebrovascular disease; a small increase in risk was suggested by the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction of Cholesterol Levels study in subjects with prior stroke but has not been confirmed in the substantive evidence base of RCTs, cohort studies and case–control studies.
Conclusion
Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; statin-associated muscle symptoms were discussed in a previous Consensus Statement. Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects.
Tuesday, May 01, 2018
Midlife Cardiovascular Fitness Associated With Decreased Risk of Dementia
From Practice Update.
This study suggests that keeping fit reduces the risk of dementia. However, "keeping fit" is not assigned randomly, hence the statistical significance is considerably less what is presented.
The authors are to be commended for noting flaws and using "may".
-------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether greater cardiovascular fitness in midlife is associated with decreased dementia risk in women followed up for 44 years.
METHODS
A population-based sample of 1,462 women 38 to 60 years of age was examined in 1968. Of these, a systematic subsample comprising 191 women completed a stepwise-increased maximal ergometer cycling test to evaluate cardiovascular fitness. Subsequent examinations of dementia incidence were done in 1974, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2005, and 2009. Dementia was diagnosed according to DSM-III-R criteria on the basis of information from neuropsychiatric examinations, informant interviews, hospital records, and registry data up to 2012. Cox regressions were performed with adjustment for socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical confounders.
RESULTS
Compared with medium fitness, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause dementia during the 44-year follow-up was 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.54) among those with high fitness and 1.41 (95% CI 0.72-2.79) among those with low fitness. High fitness delayed age at dementia onset by 9.5 years and time to dementia onset by 5 years compared to medium fitness.
CONCLUSIONS
Among Swedish women, a high cardiovascular fitness in midlife was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent dementia. Promotion of a high cardiovascular fitness may be included in strategies to mitigate or prevent dementia. Findings are not causal, and future research needs to focus on whether improved fitness could have positive effects on dementia risk and when during the life course a high cardiovascular fitness is most important.
This study suggests that keeping fit reduces the risk of dementia. However, "keeping fit" is not assigned randomly, hence the statistical significance is considerably less what is presented.
The authors are to be commended for noting flaws and using "may".
-------------------------------------------
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether greater cardiovascular fitness in midlife is associated with decreased dementia risk in women followed up for 44 years.
METHODS
A population-based sample of 1,462 women 38 to 60 years of age was examined in 1968. Of these, a systematic subsample comprising 191 women completed a stepwise-increased maximal ergometer cycling test to evaluate cardiovascular fitness. Subsequent examinations of dementia incidence were done in 1974, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2005, and 2009. Dementia was diagnosed according to DSM-III-R criteria on the basis of information from neuropsychiatric examinations, informant interviews, hospital records, and registry data up to 2012. Cox regressions were performed with adjustment for socioeconomic, lifestyle, and medical confounders.
RESULTS
Compared with medium fitness, the adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause dementia during the 44-year follow-up was 0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.54) among those with high fitness and 1.41 (95% CI 0.72-2.79) among those with low fitness. High fitness delayed age at dementia onset by 9.5 years and time to dementia onset by 5 years compared to medium fitness.
CONCLUSIONS
Among Swedish women, a high cardiovascular fitness in midlife was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent dementia. Promotion of a high cardiovascular fitness may be included in strategies to mitigate or prevent dementia. Findings are not causal, and future research needs to focus on whether improved fitness could have positive effects on dementia risk and when during the life course a high cardiovascular fitness is most important.
Artificially Sweetened Beverages, Stroke,and Dementia
From Practice Update.
First you are told one thing, then you are told another. The reliability record of claims about what is safe to eat is not good.
This report does not mention if the overall death rate was higher or lower for artificial sweeteners - so the moral of the story may not be to give up artificial sweeteners vs. sugar.
------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverage intake have been linked to cardiometabolic risk factors, which increase the risk of cerebrovascular disease and dementia. We examined whether sugar- or artificially sweetened beverage consumption was associated with the prospective risks of incident stroke or dementia in the community-based Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort.
METHODS
We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke (mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60 years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men). Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at cohort examinations 5 (1991-1995), 6 (1995-1998), and 7 (1998-2001). We quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimer's disease).
RESULTS
After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer's disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-7.07) for Alzheimer's disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
CONCLUSIONS
Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
First you are told one thing, then you are told another. The reliability record of claims about what is safe to eat is not good.
This report does not mention if the overall death rate was higher or lower for artificial sweeteners - so the moral of the story may not be to give up artificial sweeteners vs. sugar.
------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverage intake have been linked to cardiometabolic risk factors, which increase the risk of cerebrovascular disease and dementia. We examined whether sugar- or artificially sweetened beverage consumption was associated with the prospective risks of incident stroke or dementia in the community-based Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort.
METHODS
We studied 2888 participants aged >45 years for incident stroke (mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged >60 years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men). Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at cohort examinations 5 (1991-1995), 6 (1995-1998), and 7 (1998-2001). We quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimer's disease).
RESULTS
After adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer's disease dementia. When comparing daily cumulative intake to 0 per week (reference), the hazard ratios were 2.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.26-6.97) for ischemic stroke and 2.89 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-7.07) for Alzheimer's disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia.
CONCLUSIONS
Artificially sweetened soft drink consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke and dementia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)